10 replies to this topic

[DavidStodolsky]

An article with the Topic Title has just come online and I am looking for suggestions and comments in order to improve its appearance. 

 

http://cogentoa.tand...86.2016.1167576

[Antonio2014]

I can't see it because cookies are required.

[DavidStodolsky]

If you paste the DOI:

 

10.1080/23311886.2016.1167576

 

into 

 

sci-hub.io

 

you will get an option (in Russian) to download the PDF:

 

http://sci-hub.io/ht...6.2016.1167576#

 

[Antonio2014]

Thanks!

 

Mmm I think I read it, or a previous version of it, in the FightAging! blog. I found it too US-centric. For example, here in Europe, religion is not so important, and we are near KrioRus, that is cheaper (only $12,000 for neuro), so, at least here, cryonics is not so millionaire-oriented, and the atheism is not a big issue. We do have, in many countries, legal problems for doing the standby, which must be done in Russia or the US.

 

So it would be interesting to extend the paper's scope.

Edited by Antonio2014, 10 April 2016 - 07:28 PM.

[DavidStodolsky]

The draft wasn't posted to the FightAging blog.

My name doesn't appear there at all, as far as Google can see.

[Antonio2014]

Mmm then maybe I read it somewhere.

 

I found this old version: http://cosmism.blogs...s-overview.html but I think I read it in a different website.

Edited by Antonio2014, 10 April 2016 - 10:42 PM.

[lunarsolarpower]

Hello David,

 

I have pointed this article out to several people to read. I have been surprised how many of them have seen it in a critical light and wish to dismiss you as a detractor of cryonics. I see the criticisms as having significant weight and being things that should be addressed by the cryonics community. It makes sense that a movement that endeavours to launch a multi-century or millennia long project should deploy the the best possible structures for long term sustainability. I'm not convinced of all your solutions as presented but I would be interested to see them tried out on a regional trial basis to see if they gain traction.

[DavidStodolsky]

Characterizing someone who has contributed to the cryonics community since the 1970s and who is a fully-funded cryonicist as a “detractor of cryonics” is a sign of desperation by those refusing to face reality. This is an example of the religious cultism described in my article.

 

We are well past trying out my ideas on a “regional trial basis.” KrioRus has from its founding taken a mainstream approach to marketing cryonics. They have participated in conferences for funeral directors, etc. It is only the US cryonics organizations that continue to insist that they are doing medicine and thereby ignore the mainstream growth opportunities.

 

One way to distinguish religious cultism from science is to see whether the most fundamental principles of science are respected. One of those principles is “remote criticism.” Within science this is expressed through the peer review process and in the publication of articles critical of previous published works. Let’s take the process of getting my article published as an illustration of how scientific the US centered cryonics / transhumanist movement is in actuality.

 

The article was first posted to the Files page of CI’s Yahoo Groups mailing list. As can be seen in the Minutes of the the CI Board of Directors meetings, it was officially deleted even though the only people who could see it were CI members. I pointed out at the time that it appeared that this was developing into yet another example of the movement hanging its dirty laundry out in public. Since a previously accepted article for the supposedly independent Immortality Society’s journal had been cancelled, that was obviously not an appropriate venue.

 

It was then submitted to the Journal of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. After many months delay, I was notified that it was not deemed to be of adequate quality to appear there. This coincided with deletion of other text by me from publications of that organization. The whole sad story with full documentation was posted to my blog.

 

It was then submitted for C. Tandy’s Death and Anti-Death series, both by me directly and through being forwarded by a respected member of the cryonics community. I had previously published in that series and therefore was well known to the editor. Months passed without even an acknowledgement of receipt. Tandy later claimed that this was a result of a “misunderstanding.”

 

It was next submitted to H+ Magazine, where it was accepted with a modified title. After about a month, it was deleted without any explanation whatsoever. The effect of all of these delays and the repeated censorship was that it finally appeared four years after its initial presentation. Anyone who claims that this shows the US movement is scientific has a better imagination then I do.

 

Currently, CI, the Venturist Society, etc. are showing their commitment to science and democracy by secretly censoring all media they control. They spread libels about their opponents and use their law firm to shut them up. My membership at CI was cancelled in order to ensure that I could not even transmit 140 word per year to the other members. CI continues to operate in violation of Michigan law in order to ensure that only true believers can address the membership. The current leadership apparently continues to delude themselves into believing that this coverup can continue forever. 

 

[Rib Jig]

Your article technical -- I'm laymen.

With that in mind, some questions-points:

 

a. it covers rise & decline of CI only?  what about Alcor -- is it also risen & declining?

 

b. I predict a burst in cryonics interest-activity, caused by either or both:

1. celebrity involvement, e.g., someone relatively young declaring they're pro-cryonics (Michael Jackson or Prince types)

2. NASA involvement, e.g., early preparation for deep space exploration requiring suspended animation experimenting

Edited by Rib Jig, 10 July 2016 - 06:43 PM.

[DavidStodolsky]

a.

While I discuss the situation of cryonics in US generally, only CI data permitted analysis. It is justified to treat the US cryonics movement as a whole, since there has been an exchange of persons among these organizations. This includes employees, activists, and passive enrollees. The result has been development of a common ideological position over the period in question.

 

An ideological dispute at Alcor led to a large number of persons departing to found the Cryocare companies in 1993. As a result, it was impossible to fit a growth curve to the data from Alcor. However, it appears to be following the same overall growth trajectory as CI.

 

b. 1.

The effect of celebrity involvement was considered in the Badger Survey. None of the factors thought likely to change peoples’ attitudes toward cryonics appeared to have any effect. This included demonstration of a person being revitalized. About a third of the respondents indicated that nothing would change their attitude toward cryonics. A number of my posts to the old CryoNet list presented statistical results on this issue.

 

2.

NASA involvement in suspended animation terminated in the 1980s. Current interest is in deep sleep states, not cryonics. 

 

[DavidStodolsky]

My earlier statement "...I could not even transmit 140 word per year to the other members." was incorrect.

It was actually "...150 words per year..."